THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: thelema93-l@bitsy.hollyfeld.org
Subject: Re: Thelema and the OTO (was Caliphate Christianity??
From: tyagi@HOUSEOFKAOS.ABYSS.COM (xiwangmu)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 00:52:01 -0700 (PDT)

49960812 AA1 Hail Satan!

E6!

"Nexist [DAR]" :
#...you have a definate interpretation of what Thelema is ....

many people do.  I have rarely attempted to define it in any absolute way.


#...Most of your contentions seem to revolve around the failure of others 
#to conform to your definition of Thelema....  by what right do you define 
#Thelema for the rest of us?  

I'm not aware that I have ever defined it for any other than myself.
usually I'm quite circumspect in my discernment as to what I say about
Thelema and other similar esoteric concepts (about which I tend to 
presume each of us has our own notion).


#By what right do you have the power to say "that is Thelemic" & "that is 
#not"?  

I don't believe in rights.  if I have fingers and am not excluded from this
forum then I have a 'right' (by virtue of power) to express anything I want
here, as do you.  this may involve statements about what I think Thelema is 
or may include (usually what I tend to think it includes, and I'm open to 
discussing my assertions).


#Your argument take the stand that all who do not agree with you are 
#un-Thelemic, blind and/or fools.

I'll watch for this.  I don't think that I can find anything within the
quotes you selected out which substantiates this extreme assertion and 
I doubt I've ever said anything of the sort, though you may well have
interpreted me this way.

the only thing you quoted which strikes me as similar to your claim is this:

#>I do agree with you to a certain extent, in that some (possibly including
#>me) just don't want a clue as regards what Thelema means and how
#>much effort it takes to resist the insidious Octopus.  if 'Thelemic' orgs
#>don't set an example and exemplify this, then they ain't no such animal.  

I enjoyed saying that I could be mistaken about what 'Thelema' means and
following this with an assertion that if an org doesn't set an example 
and portray it in public then it isn't deserving of the category of its
principles.  I don't think this says 'those who don't agree with me are
fools'.  it does say 'those who are say they are in orgs which support 
the Law of Thelema and these orgs aren't acting by "Thelemic" principles 
aren't really in any such orgs at all, they are mistaken'.  I don't try 
to identify which these orgs are.


#...it all resolves down to "It isn't Thelemic because I don't like it".  

I'll take this as a query as to what I think makes something 'Thelemic'.
I tend to think that those objects, individuals and organizations which
respect the individual will, as you say yourself (though I don't here
use any capitals, feeling them unnecessary), as sacrosanct exemplify 
Thelemic principles.  this will, while challengeable on the field of 
battle, is foolish and counterproductive to oppose (esp. when 'true').


#The last I checked, Thelema meant Will, as in individual Will, as in
#the right for each and every individual to determine their own definition of
#what Thelema is for them.  

I don't think that 'Thelema' has any single absolute definition.  you seem
to here imply that it does.  I think that 'Will', the way you are using it,
may be somewhat complicated and difficult to discern with any acumen, and
we may argue all manner of support for our actions about past and future
activities.  I tend to think that our will is proven out by what comes to
pass (though this may indeed be mired in a posteriori interpretation).


#Those who agree to a large extant then group together & form Orders, 
#Temples, Covens, or whatever you wish to call such groupings, 

I think there is room to suppose that any such grouping necessarily and
eventually compromises the wills of those within these groups.


#OR they remain solitary, perhaps only meeting occasionally,

I like to assert that the only Thelemite is the solitary Thelemite.
then again I like to say the same thing about Satanists. :>


#...If ones definition of Thelema differs greatly from the Groups,
#they are then harming each others progress, 

I think a variety of opinion is healthy.  too often group-mind takes over
and we are left with a shell of little value, only a shard of its former 
glory.


#and it is incumbant to both parties to develop a =benificial= relationship.  

it is not *my* obligation or duty.  nor do I truly understand how we can
at length determine what kinds of relationships are, as a whole, 'beneficial'.
antagonistic relationships (say, as wolves to sheep) are of benefit at times.


#...if you are unhappy (which, by my reading of AL, is unthelemic) 

I don't think that any particular emotion is 'unthelemic'.  if AL says that
it is, then AL is wrong.  some people like unhappiness.  I don't particularly
feel unhappy, but this term is over-bandied.


#then it is incumbent upon you to find a situation that does make you happy.

as I have no obligations or duties to anyone but myself I'm not sure how
you can tell what is 'incumbent upon me' to do.  I don't particularly
favor such restriction, feeling it to be, in the words of the Evil Book, 
a 'sin'.


#As for "Satanism", it is as was pointed out earlier, a limiting factor, 

it is only a limiting factor as regards an identification badge for the 
current Caliphate OTO.  with this I tend to agree.  some limitations are
nonetheless beneficial (as I'm sure you'll agree, since you appear to 
place a great emphasis on oaths and incumbence).


#I agree that it is a child of the Thelemic Current, 

I'm not sure I said that.  it is possible that it is the mainstream, the
cutting edge, the hot line, of the Thelemic Current, alternatively.  my
comment was that Satanism appears to be a Thelemic outgrowth.  I didn't
say what relation it bore to the current of Thelema (identical, 
offspring, etc.).


#but still, it is a limited, reactionary current.  

that is sometimes true, to be sure, and yet all tributaries do not themselves
constitute the river.  these words ('current', 'Satanism') are too vague to
categorize as you have in any meaningful manner.


#To my mind, Thelema takes the "Currents of Light and Dark" and marries 
#them into perfect balance.  

very lovely.


#Satanism is a needed stepping stone because of the Dominence of the 
#"Light", a reactionary force manifested for the pendulums swing so 
#that Thelema can exist in the Balance therein.

or perhaps Thelema is the life-blood of a Satanic current which is within
us all, that wild lust of the Beast.  there are many ways to characterize
these things, I'm sure.


#Finally, I question your arbitrary divisions of Philosophy and Religion.
#What truly is the difference?  

arbitrary?  I was reflecting on comments made by others, though I admit 
I enjoy them.  didn't someone post their Bible-definitions on 'religion'
and 'philosophy' lately in Usenet?  well, I don't think I saved them,
but I will reflect on your query.

the way I meant it, 'a philosophy' is an abstract set of principles and
concepts which may be applied within one's life, often without regard to
particular context.  'a religion' varies, but when it relates to 'Thelema',
it seems to include certain cosmologies, theologies, flavors and kinds
of pantheons (as in the Evil Book), allegiances to certain prophets (like
the Creepy-Crawley guy), and often 'rituals of religious dedication' 
(like the Gnostic Mass, or Resh or even Will or any variety of rites such
as these which participate in CULTure).

I also made the distinction (in my extreme assertion) that a religion
generates a CULT whereas a philosophy is just a tool which we can take
up or put down as we deign necessary for us.


#Both are merely methods for trying to define the "I" in relation to 
#the "not-I".  

that isn't how I meant them, and I don't think that this truly qualifies
in some general sense of defining them.


#Other than the fact that Religion claims "Para-Normal" sources & one 
#claims "Rational" sources (note, I used "claims" purposely), they are 
#exactly identical in purpose and adherence.

I see 'philosophy' as separate from social system and 'religion' as
very specifically socially-oriented (thus solo 'tool' versus social
'cult' respectively).

E6/6/6
mu